In recent years, there has been an accelerated growth in the use of contactless electromagnetic or magnetic resonant data storage (“RDS”) devices (for example implemented as tags, card, embedded elements, and similar devices), for inventory and facility control and management, for product tracking during transportation (e.g., throughout a supply chain), for security purposes (e.g., personal identification (e.g., passports, driver's licenses, alien registration cards), access control, etc.), and to facilitate various forms of electronic information interchange (for example in electronic commerce, such as payment cards, etc.). As their cost decreases and their capabilities increase, these RDS devices are also finding their way into many other applications. The vast majority of RDS devices use one of two different contactless RDS technologies: RFID (“Radio Frequency Identification”), and RuBee active two-way wireless Long Wave (LW) technology, which is currently based on the IEEE physical layer specifications P1902.1 (and currently on the draft 1902.2 specification).
However, conventional RDS devices suffer from a serious disadvantage-specifically, an unauthorized party (with a compatible RDS device reader or equivalent) who is within a predefined interrogation range of a typical RDS device may be able to access, delete, and possibly even alter the data stored in the device. Clearly, this disadvantage becomes a critical issue in certain RDS applications, such as security and/or e-commerce, in which individuals' personal and/or financial information may be stored in the RDS device, and thus be subject to access and/or misappropriation by unauthorized third parties. The lack of protection against undesirable interrogation is of particular concerns with respect to RDS devices based on RuBee technology. Due to the long range, resistance to interference and “dead spots”, and in view of the ability of RuBee's “Long Waves” magnetic field to penetrate many materials that would block RFID signals, RuBee-based RDS devices have a greater exposure and less defenses against unauthorized access thereto. Furthermore, the new RuBee draft 1902.2 specification which may enable RuBee-based RDS devices to directly access (and be accessed from) the Internet, focuses even more attention on the aforementioned RDS device access challenges.
Concerns over the abovementioned significant vulnerabilities of RDS devices, and over RDS device-related privacy considerations in general, have spurred the development of techniques to permanently disable an operational RDS device after a certain event has occurred (for example, after a RDS tagged product has been sold to the consumer). However, such a crude “solution” does not in any way address the numerous applications in which further use of the RDS device is necessary after the event, nor does it address the applications in which it may be desirable to keep a RDS device in an inactive mode until after a particular predetermined event occurs. Such applications may include, but are not limited to, situations in which the RDS device's information should be protected from surreptitious and/or unauthorized reading until after the RDS device-tagged product has been purchased, or the RDS device is otherwise authorized for access.
In order to address the above challenges, a number of solutions, described in greater detail below, have been proposed in recent years. However, each of those solutions suffers from one or more serious disadvantages, and none of the previously known solutions adequately address the full extent of the abovementioned challenges. It would be helpful to provide a brief overview below of the various types of such attempted, but ultimately commercially unsuccessful solutions.
First, by way of example, referring to the U.S. Pat. No. 6,863,220, entitled “Manually Operated Switch For Enabling and Disabling an RFID Card”, and to the U.S. Patent Application, Pub. No. 2007/0290051, entitled “Contactless Card With Membrane Switch Made of Elasto-Resistive Material”, both references propose RDS devices that are based on complex on/off RFID/contactless card switches that utilize mechanical parts and/or that incorporate special contact-based materials in their construction, and that are, as a result, more difficult to fabricate. These devices also position a close-range or high frequency antenna between the respective RFID microchip and switch contactor. The complexities in their construction and implementation, also render such switches overly sensitive to disturbances to the RDS device in which they are incorporated.
Referring now to U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,277,016 and 7,253,734, both entitled “System and Method For Altering or Disabling RFID Tags”, both references propose solutions in which at least a portion of the antenna in the RDS device is physically damaged or otherwise physically compromised or covered sufficiently to: either reduce the interrogation range of the RDS device (i.e., the range at which it can be accessed), or to disable access to the RDS entirely. However, these RDS device may still be subjected to unauthorized interrogation (albeit at a shorter range), and are difficult, if not impossible to re-use.
Various U.S. patents and applications of Mr. Steven M. Colby, such as U.S. Patent Application, Pub. No. US2007/0109101, entitled “Electronically Switchable RFID Tags”, show an RFID device with various configurations and different possible positions for a membrane switch. However, the Colby inventions show single-break switches which can leave the electronic data in the tag subject to interrogation with a powerful RF signals, especially in certain frequency bands. Also none of Mr. Colby's patents show or describe any way to permanently change the default mode of operation of the RFID tag from being always active to being always off.
Finally, referring now to U.S. Patent Application, Pub. No. US2008/0084309, entitled “Revealable RFID Devices”, this reference proposes the use of conductive material positioned over a part of the RFID device antenna, or that completely covers the entire RFID device (rendering it effectively inoperable) until it is removed, thus “revealing” the device. Thus, while this reference may provide a solution for keeping the RDS device inoperable until a certain event, it prevents the disclosed RFID tag from being used in an entire range of applications in which it is necessary to use the RDS device until a certain event occurs—not only the other way around. For example, during multiple key stages of their production and distribution, products supplied with the above-described RFID tag would be of no use—they are fabricated, stored, and then transported from a manufacturer to a retailer, all without being able to the RFID tag to for tracking/management purposes tracking until conductive material is removed from the tag, revealing its antenna, and thus undesirably bringing all of the above-described access vulnerabilities and security flaws into play.
It would thus be desirable to provide an advantageous RDS device apparatus that may be implemented as a resonant tag, card, and/or embedded element, capable of user-selectable operation in one of a plurality of security modes, wherein in a first plural security mode the RDS device would be responsive to predetermined electromagnetic or magnetic interrogation thereof, and wherein in a second plural security mode the RDS device would be unresponsive to any interrogation. It would also be desirable to provide a RDS device apparatus that is operable to be selectively placed in an “Always-ON” security mode in which it is freely accessible until switched, by a user, to an “Always-OFF” security mode in which the RDS device is no longer accessible. It would furthermore be desirable to provide a RDS device apparatus with a security mode control that is operable by the user to selectively and temporarily switch the RDS device from an “Always-OFF” security mode in which the device is not accessible to a “temporary on” security mode which allows the RDS device to be accessed as long as the user continues to engage the security mode control, and that automatically returns the RDS device to its “Always-OFF” security mode when the user releases the control. It would moreover be desirable to provide a RDS device apparatus with a security mode and other controls that are operable by the user to selectively and temporarily switch the RDS device between multiple security modes and that is capable of selectively utilizing at least one selected antenna for allowing data access thereto in accordance with one or more active security modes thereof. It would additionally be desirable to provide a RDS device apparatus having a security mode control that is easy and inexpensive to fabricate, that is readily accessible to, and operable by, the user, that is reliable, and that does not damage the RDS device in which it is implemented after repeated use. It would furthermore be desirable to provide a RDS device apparatus operable to perform multiple additional functions, and supplied with additional capabilities.